Purgatory P.leyshon

7/30/2019 Purgatory P.leyshon

1/55

The Purpose of Purgatory:

Expiation or Maturation?

A BTh Dissertation

Gareth Leyshon2nd March, 2005

St Johns Seminary, WonershBTh (Hons): THC01 Dissertation

Word Count: 10,781

Supervisor:Revd Dr Stephen Dingley

Preparatory supervisor:Revd Dr Anthony Barratt


2/55

THC01: Dissertation The Purpose of Purgatory Gareth Leyshon

Page 2

The Purpose of Purgatory:

Expiation or Maturation?

CONTENTSChapter 1: Introduction ...................................................3

Chapter 2: Doctrinal Statements....................................6

Chapter 3: The Constraints of Doctrine .................... 12

Chapter 4: The Contribution ofScripture and Tradition............................ 16

Chapter 5: Purgatory:A Description and a Critique................... 40

Chapter 6: Conclusion................................................... 49

Bibliography .................................................................... 50

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

The author would like to thank the Revd Dr Stephen Dingley for his extensive

assistance and suggestions in preparing this dissertation; the Revd Dr Anthony

Barratt for his guidance in specifying the topic; Sr M. Finbarr Coffey and Mr Sean

OConnor for their pro-active encouragement in suggesting useful sources; and Mr

Behruz Rafat for his insight into the Divine Mercy.


3/55


Page 3

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Purgatory is a

purification. In the context of its principal teaching on Purgatory,1 the

Catechismdoes not specify that this purification is a punishment (indeed,

paragraph 1031 makes an explicit contrast with the punishment of the

damned), but briefly affirms the Churchs tradition of granting indulgences

in suffrage for the dead. It allows that the purification is traditionally spoken

of as a cleansing fire.

Elsewhere,2

however, the Catechism treats more fully of indulgences, and

does speak of the temporal punishment due to sin. There are clearly two

concepts associated with this temporal punishment:

The more explicit definition stated in paragraph 1472 asserts that every

sin committed indicates some unhealthy attachment to creatures (meaning

created things, that is, things less than God Himself). Therefore, a soul must

be totally purified of such attachments and the appropriate purification

satisfies the temporal punishment due to each sin. In this case, the

purification would appear to be identified with maturation, which of its very

nature is part of the development of an individual soul.

The following paragraphs, however, use temporal punishment in a way

which indicates the more usual connotations of the word punishment, as a

penalty justly3 imposed, and develops the economic idea of how our

prayerful works can assist those in Purgatory. The implicit definition of the

1Catechism of the Catholic Church(hereafter CCC), 1030-1032.

2 CCC 1471-1479.

3 The penalty is justly deserved, and follows from the nature of sin (CCC 1472); it must not be

interpreted as retribution exacted by a vengeful God.


4/55


Page 4

punishment here would seem to be an expiation,4 which must be paid off to

clear an objective debt, but in which the whole communion of saints

potentially co-operates and contributes.

Is it possible for a temporal punishment to be at one and the same time

a personal detachment from created things anda corporate fine, or is one

term doing duty for two incommensurable concepts in different theological

domains?

In this dissertation I propose to explore how Purgatory should be

understood in the 21st Century, in the light of the development of doctrine

and a careful exegesis of Scripture. Particular attention will be paid to New

Testament texts which have not previously been treated in any depth as

theological loci for this topic, especially dominical sayings about the person

who shall not get out until they have paid the last penny. 5 This is not a

discussion of whether Purgatory exists, since it is framed within the

paradigm of Catholic theology which accepts the Magisterial teaching thatthere is a Purgatory.6 Neither is this a history of ideas about Purgatory,

except insofar as historical context is necessary to understand the literal

sense of Scripture and the weight of dogmatic statements of the

Magisterium. Nor is it a search to find a new, more culturally relevant,

metaphor.7 Rather, our methodology shall be to establish what must, what

4 That sins are expiated in Purgatory is explicitly stated in CCC 1475; the same understanding of the

meaning of temporal punishment is implicit throughout paragraphs 1473-1479.

5 Mt 5:26, 18:23-35, Lk 12:59.

6 Relevant dogmatic statements will be identified in the following chapter.

7 For attempts in this direction, see F. Seibel, Purgatory: An Interpretation, R. Schreiter,

Purgatory: In Quest of an Image, G. L. Mller, Purgatory, and D. Kendall, The Perpetual

Light of Peace.


5/55


Page 5

may, and what cannot be said about Purgatory in the light first of binding

doctrinal statements, secondly of the Deposit of Faith, in order to reach a

synthesis; this may then be compared with, and informed by, contemporary

theological viewpoints, not all of which are framed within a Catholic

paradigm.


6/55


Page 6

Chapter 2: Doctrinal Statements

This dissertation presupposes that the Catholic Church enjoys a God-

given authority to pronounce upon the truth of theological statements, and

the correct interpretation of Scripture and Tradition.8 Therefore compatibility

with Magisterial statements is a criterion of truth, as long as care is taken to

avoid unwarranted assumptions about the meaning or level of authority of

such statements. Since our current project is to understand Purgatory in the

light of the development of doctrine, it is appropriate to start by identifying

which teaching documents apply.9

In 1336 Pope Benedict XII acted to resolve a controversy inflamed by his

predecessor, John XXII, about whether the souls in heaven enjoy the Beatific

Vision while awaiting their resurrection.10 He promulgated the Constitution

Benedictus Deus:

By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, withapostolic authority, define the following: According to the generaldisposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from thisworld before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, orwill not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if theythen needed or will need some purification, after they have beenpurified after death and again the souls of children who have beenreborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism isconferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all

these souls, immediately after death and, in the case of those in needof purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the

8 CCC 84-95; see also John Paul II, Ad Tuendam Fidem.

9 J. Neuner and J. Dupuis (eds), The Christian Faith(6th edition), pp 937-951, paragraphs (henceforth

indicated ND) 2301-2317. Where cross-references are given, DS henceforth will indicate paragraph

references to the 36th edition of H. Denzinger and A. Schnmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum,

Definitionum et Declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, Freiberg im Breisgau, 1976.

10 P. Binski, Mediaeval Death, 214.


7/55


Page 7

Ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, alreadybefore they take up their bodies again and before the generaljudgment [enjoy the Beatific Vision].11

The force of the Papal definition makes it indisputable doctrine that the

discarnate souls in heaven do enjoy the Beatific Vision: this beatific state

between death and resurrection is one in which souls enjoy some kind of

experience of relating to God. Since the definition only recognises that

purification must take place where necessary and does not specify when

this would be the case, nor the form that it should take, it is possible to

make a technical argument that this document does not directly assert a

process ofpost-mortempurification: while Benedict XII clearly believed such

purification to be necessary, the doctrinal formula as stated is vulnerable to

arguments that, by the grace of God, post-mortempurification might never,

in fact, be required. It does follow from the definition, however, that any

need for purification can only be incurred by exercise of ones free will, since

papal authority asserts that those who die without attaining use of free will

enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately.

In 1439, the General Council of Florence, seeking reunion with Eastern

Christendom, promulgated its Decree for the Greeks.12 To avoid unnecessary

dispute, no mention was made of Purgatory being a place, nor of the aptness

of fire to describe the means of purification. The phrase satisfied by worthy

fruits of penance must be understood in the light of the growing practice of

private penance at that time.13

11 Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus:ND 2305 = DS 1000.

12 ND, commentary on page 944.

13 A. van der Walle, From Darkness to the Dawn, 203.


8/55


Page 8

And, if they [souls] are truly penitent and die in God's love beforehaving satisfied by worthy fruits of penance for their sins ofcommission and omission, their souls are cleansed after death bypurgatorial penalties. In order that they be relieved from suchpenalties, the acts of intercession of the living faithful benefit them,namely the sacrifices of the Mass, prayers, alms and other works of

piety which the faithful are wont to do for the other faithful accordingto the Church's practice.14

The souls of those who, after having received baptism, haveincurred no stain of sin whatever, and those souls who, after havingcontracted the stain of sin, have been cleansed, either while in theirbodies or after having been divested of them as stated above, arereceived immediately into heaven, and see clearly God himself, oneand three, as he is, though some more perfectly than others, accordingto the diversity of merits.15 [The possibility of different degrees ofpunishment in Hell is then affirmed.]

The language used here repeats almost verbatim a decree of the Second

Council of Lyons (1274),16 with the addition of a doctrine of degrees of bliss

according to merit. The teaching on Purgatory echoes very closely a

statement of Pope Clement IV, proposed in 1267 to Emperor Michael VIII

Paleologus as representing the faith of the Holy Roman Church.17 Dupuis

comments:

As regards the doctrine of purgatory, the Orientals admitted its

existence as well as the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead. But,while the Latin Church explained its nature with the help of thejuridical concept of satisfaction, the East conceived it in a moremystical manner, as a process of maturation and spiritual growth.With regard to the beatific vision, the Orientals denied its immediatepossibility and held that it would begin only after the generalresurrection.18

It is important to recognise that by this time, sacramental reconciliation

(with the imposition of an act of penance as satisfaction) had evolved from

being a once-only second plank of salvation, to being a frequent practice of

14 ND 2308 = DS 1304.

15 ND 2309 = DS 1305.

16 ND 26 = DS 855-858.

17 ND, commentary text on pages 17 and 944.

18 ND, commentary text on page 944.


9/55


Page 9

the faithful. During the first millennium of Christendom, the Sacrament of

Penance was regarded as for use once only after Baptism, and necessary only

for the most serious sins. Towards the end of the millennium, and more

slowly in some parts of Christendom than others, a gradual shift took place

to the practice of more frequent recourse to the sacrament, with penitential

exercises of a less public nature being imposed on the sinners.19 If the

undertaking of the penance was a necessary part of obtaining Gods

forgiveness, though, what if the penitent were to die before completing the

exercise? This concern is clearly evident in the language of Clement IV, and

the conciliar texts of Lyons II and Florence, where post-mortempurgatorial

penalties provide the satisfaction which was not rendered before death.

The 25th (final) session of the Council of Trent issued a Decree on

Purgatory in 1563. It did not treat of the nature of purgatory and simply

restated the established teaching of the Church:The Catholic Church has taught in the holy Councils and mostrecently in this ecumenical Council that there is a purgatory, and thatthe souls detained there are helped by the acts of intercession of thefaithful, and especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar.20

Paragraph 1031 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates

Florence and Trent as the key formulations of the doctrine on Purgatory, and

nothing further has been established since. At Vatican II, Lumen Gentium

offered a strong vision of the perfection which awaits the Church after the

Last Judgment, and the imperfect state in which we now live through the last

19 R. McBrien, Catholicism, 837-840; P. Haffner, The Sacramental Mystery, 119-127.

20 ND 2310 = DS 1820, also commentary on page 945.


10/55


Page 10

days; the souls in purgatory were accorded their status as members of this

imperfect church, and the efficacy of suffrage for them upheld.21

In 1967, Pope Paul VI issued an Apostolic Constitution on indulgences,22

setting forth the Churchs teaching and revising the norms for obtaining

them. This clearly followed the Latin tradition of a just expiation:

It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted byGod's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earththrough the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above allthrough death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments orpurifying punishments imposed by the just and merciful judgment

of God for the purification of souls, the defence of the sanctity of themoral order and the restoration of the glory of God to its fullmajesty23

It is therefore necessary for the full remission and as it is called reparation of sins that all the personal as well as social values andthose of the universal order itself, which have been diminished ordestroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntaryreparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance ofthe punishments established That punishment or the vestiges of sinmay remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequentlydo even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by thedoctrine on purgatory.24 [The Council of Florence text follows.]

This document also made clear the Churchs intention that, if possible, no

soul should suffer Purgatory. Noting that Canon 468 2 of the 1917 Code25

required priests to grant an apostolic blessing imparting a plenary

indulgence whenever they assisted a dying person with the sacraments, Paul

VI granted the same indulgence, in the absence of a priest, to any dying

member of the faithful provided they are properly disposed and have been

21 Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 48-51.

22 Paul VI, Indulgentiarum Doctrina, hereafter ID.

23 ID 2.

24 ID 3.

25 J. Myers, The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, 181.


11/55


Page 11

in the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime.26 Such conditions

are not onerous, especially if properly disposed need not be as exacting as

the usual condition of total detachment from all sin.

Finally, we have already noted how the Catechism summarises the

Churchs teaching in Purgatory in two sections: eschatology (1030-1032) and

indulgences (1471-1479).

26 ID, norm 18.


12/55


Page 12

Chapter 3: The Constraints of Doctrine

Having identified the applicable definitions, what necessarily follows?

Are there logical consequences which clarify what must, what may, and what

cannotbe said about Purgatory in the light of the foregoing statements? This

chapter is an exercise in logic, and will not consider in detail the human

experience of undergoing purgation.

The Council of Florence asserted that after death there is an experience

of purgatorial penalties. This circumlocution is a natural way of speaking in

a Latin tradition which had long used the adjective purgatorial, but, as Le

Goff has shown,27 only began to admit the noun purgatoriumfrom the late

12th Century. The experiences which souls undergo in this state are therefore

penalties, i.e. (following Benedictus Deus) punishments incurred according to

wrongful exercise of ones free-will; they are also purgatorial they cleanse

the soul in a manner similar to the voluntary undertaking of penitential acts

by the living.

Florence, Trent, and mediaeval Eastern belief held that suffrage benefits

souls in purgatory. It must therefore be the case that a souls post-mortem

experience is in some meaningful way made betterwhen someone exercises

suffrage on its behalf. Now it cannot be better for the soul to endure an

increased penalty, nor for it to be purified less than totally from its sins.

Therefore, the effect of suffrage must be (i) a lessening of penalty, (ii) a

greater purification, and/or (iii) some form of blessing incommensurable

27 J. Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, 362-366.


13/55


Page 13

with penalties or purification. Further, since the Church admits the concept

of a plenary indulgence, a total remission of penalty (i.e. effect i) is possible.

If the experience of purgatory were not quantifiable in this way, it would

be meaningless to speak of the possibility of a benefit, which of its very

nature is an increase of goodness. Therefore it must be possible to quantify

the experience of purgatory, at least in asserting the existence of greater

and lesser purifications and punishments, without prejudice to the

possibility of co-existent blessings of type (iii).

Now, the nature of a penalty is that it is a satisfaction demanded

objectively by a wrongful act. The nature of a purification is to cleanse the

will from attachment to anything less than God, so that the will may always

choose the highest good. As an initial model, suppose there were an

economy of purification whereby the degree of satisfaction (penalty)

required depended exactlyon the extent of the failure of will. In this case, to

undergo purification in and of itself would constitute the satisfaction whichjustice demands, and the purging experience would be quantifiable using

only one dimension.

How would the suffrage of the living affect this one-dimensional model

where the penalty is proportional to the impurity of the will? If the penalty

were lessened, then so would be the degree of purification, with the

consequence that the more people prayed for a particular soul, the less it

would be purified. But this cannot be a net benefit to the soul, which ends up

less pure than if it had been neglected by the living. On the other hand, if

suffrage increased the degree of purification, the soul would endure an

identical experience to that which it would have incurred had it committed

more sins. This, too, surely cannot be a benefit to the soul, and furthermore

seems unjust.


14/55


Page 14

Therefore, there must be at least two dimensions to the experience of

purgation. The simplest model is where one dimension is punitive (penal),

and may be lessened by the application of suffrage; the other dimension

depends solely upon the amount of purification needed by the will in order

to choose God alone. This, however, separates purification from penalty too

radically: we are doctrinally committed to the existence of purgatorial

penalties. There is no need to hypothecate a penalty which is not purgative

(other than in Hell); but there may be need to envisage a purgation which is

not penal particularly in the case of those who earned for themselves a

plenary indulgence during their earthly lives but died in a state of imperfect

attachment to God.

Baptised persons who die having never attained the exercise of reason do

not pass through purgation. Clearly such persons never had the opportunity

to incur penalties. Does it, however, follow that in their discarnate or

resurrected state, their wills are perfectly attuned to God, or is a purificationrequired? What of a rational person baptised on their deathbed? Baptism of

itself does not purify the behaviour of those who live any length of time

afterwards. If Church teaching requires such a person to go straight to

heaven, would they enter heaven with an impure will? There must surely be

some transformation of the soul which is purifying, but not penal.

Given the need for purgatorial penalties, but also the possibility of non-

penal purgation, let us adopt the traditional categories of duration

(analogous to time on earth) and intensity (analogous to the heat produced

by a fire). In Purgatory, we posit, a soul endures a varying (but non-zero)

intensityof purgation for a finite time. The purification required by a soul is

determined solely by the state of detachment of its will at the time of death.


15/55


Page 15

The penalty depends on the sins and good works committed since baptism

and the suffrage applied on behalf of the soul.

We further suppose that the duration of purgation is simply related to

the penalty. Therefore, if two souls have incurred the same penalty, the one

needing the greater purification must undergo a more intense purgation. If

suffrage is applied on behalf of a soul, and its duration is shortened, it must

undergo a greater intensity for the time remaining. If a plenary indulgence is

applied, this must correspond to an instantaneous purgation of unlimited

intensity (and this could apply at the moment of death in the case of one

who had earned oneself an applicable plenary indulgence during life). The

nature of the purgation must be such that a short, intense purgation is

better than a prolonged, less intense, purgation, in order for suffrage to

truly benefit the souls. Conversely, the penal nature of the penalty could be

understood as the delay which drags out the purification instead of applying

it as rapidly as possible.Penances undertaken while still in this earthly life lessen ones purgatory.

They are expiatory by virtue of being acts which would not have been

undertaken except in recompense for sin. They are purificatory by virtue of

being deliberate acts of will, exercises in training the will towards choosing

the good. But the essential connection here is precisely the exercise of the

will, which is not possible after death, where purification must be passive.

Therefore, a two-dimensional (time vs. intensity) model of purgation is

the simplest possible model which is consistent with doctrinal definitions

about purgatory. This does not rule out more complex models, where

different kinds of sin attract punishments of varying kind; but given that the

discarnate soul lacks the mechanism of a body, which would be its normal

channel for complex interactions, the simplest model might be preferred.


16/55


Page 16

Chapter 4: The Contribution of Scripture and Tradition

In this chapter we shall review the key sources from Scripture and

Tradition which arguably provide evidence for Purgatory. The methodology

to be employed is that recommended by the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

exegesis of Scripture begins with a search for the literal sense intended by

the sacred author, which is clarified by comparison with other literature of

its time and the various tools of literary criticism, particularly the historical-

critical approach.28 The standard of proof sought here29 is to establish the

literal meaning of texts without recourse to the presuppositions of any

particular Christian denomination, other than the choice of methodology just

mentioned. Both a spiritual sense and a fuller sense of scripture are also

acknowledged by Catholic authority,30 but these must be teased out in

partnership with the development of doctrine.31

Biblical texts traditionally cited32 as witnesses to Purgatory are II Macc

12:44-46 (on the fittingness of praying for the dead), Mt 12:32 (suggesting

that some sins can be forgiven in the world to come)33 and the references to

purifying fire in I Cor 3:15 and I Pt 1:7. Here I will consider these texts and

28 Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (hereafter IBC),

section Ipassimand II.B.1; see also Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum, hereafter DV, 11-12.

29 This chapter therefore works to a more ecumenical standard than the dissertation as a whole; theauthors intent is to make a case here which will meet the standard required for scholarly pan-

denominational Christian exegesis.

30 IBC II.B.2-3.

31 IBC III.B acknowledges how the first disciples experienced an ever-deepening and progressive

clarification of the revelation they had received.

32 CCC 1031-1032; Seibel, 41; Schreiter, 173-175; R. Ombres, Latins and Greeks in Debate over

Purgatory, 1230-1439, 9.

33 CCC 1031 quotes Gregory the Great using this as a proof-text.


17/55


Page 17

also offer a fresh exegesis of other texts: the dominical saying Truly I tell

you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny! found in Mt

5:26 and Lk 12:59, which is expressed in another form in the parable of the

two debtors in Mt 18:23-35;34 and also the ignorant servant punished lightly

at the Masters return in Lk 12:48.

Sources worthy of mention which witness to early Tradition concerning

prayer for the dead include the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Passion of

Perpetua, and writings of Tertullian, Origen and Augustine; these will also be

given brief consideration below.

II Maccabees: A Holy and Pious Thought?

The Old Testament (deutero-canonical) text most often used in

treatments of Purgatory is II Macc 12:44-45:

[II Macc 12:4435] Indeed, if he [Judas Maccabeus] did not expect thefallen to be resurrected, it would have been superfluous and foolish topray for the dead. [45] Moreover, he perceived that a most gloriousrecompense is laid up for those who pass away in a state of piety aholy and pious thought! Therefore he had rites of atonementperformed for the dead, to absolve them from their sin.

These verses follow an account of Jews slain in battle who were found to be

carrying idols looted from Jamnia; v 43 tells how Judas Maccabeus arranged

for a sin offering to be made in Jerusalem. The reading of vv 42b-45 is

textually difficult,36 and it is possible to read either that Judas did, or did not,

34 Use of this text for primitive forms of teaching on Purgatory is not unknown: it has been used by

Tertullian, during his montanist period, and by Cyprian. See J. Ratzinger, Eschatology, 223-224,

and Mller, 31.

35 J. Goldstein, II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 432 and 450

(hereafter Goldstein II).

36 R. Doran, The Second Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections, 277.


18/55


19/55


Page 19

polemic is the literal meaning of an inspired Biblical author, the content

holds weight. Can we assert, given the literary form, that Scripture here

revealsunambiguously that it is efficacious to pray for the dead?

The verses in II Macc are suggestive but, given the literary form, do not

constitute a revelation of efficacy beyond reasonable doubt; another possible

reading would be that God approved of the good but futile intentions of

those who sought to cleanse their kinsmen which would, however, raise

issues of whether a perfect God could approve an imperfect act. Catholic

tradition and liturgical usage42 accepts these verses as relevant to purgatory,

certainly forming part of this texts sensus pleniorin the light of subsequent

development of doctrine, but as a locus of proof it does not stand

unambiguously on its internal merits; liberal or evangelical exegetes might

also dispute the canonicity of Maccabees.

Further, and more seriously, it is problematic to construct a theology of

deliverance from Purgatory predating the saving death of Christ; and the OldTestament must be interpreted in the light of the New.43 Therefore, while II

Macc 12:44-45 is a traditional locus for revelation concerning suffrage for the

dead, it does not meet the standard set for our current project.

The Gospels: The Significance of Paying the Last Penny

At three points in the Gospel tradition, we find the concept of being

imprisoned until you have paid the last penny. Can this be understood as a

teaching on Purgatory with a clear implication of expiation?

42Lectionary III, 857 includes II Macc 12:43-45 among first readings for Masses for the Dead.

43 DV 15-16.


20/55


Page 20

This saying is placed in the mouth of Jesus as a plain teaching by both

Matthew (5:26) and Luke (12:59); Mt 18:23-35 also reprises it as the punchline

to the parable of the two debtors. These three witnesses to the saying make

it likely that the early believers knew it as a saying of Jesus, part of the Q-

source material44 if the Griesbach-Weisse two-source hypothesis45 is correct;

certainly it has been transmitted by two inspired evangelists as authentic

Christian teaching and at least in this sense represents the honest truth46 of

what Jesus taught.

Mt 5:26 places it in the context of the Sermon on the Mount.

[NRSV Mt 5:25] Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you areon the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over tothe judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown intoprison. [26] Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paidthe last penny.

The preceding verses (21-22) treat of three different kinds of punishment

incurred by giving your brother different kinds of insult; vv 23-24 place a

high priority on making peace when a brother has something against you. In

vv 25-26 it is implicit that the accusers claim against the listener is righteous

(since judgment will be passed in favour of the accuser); the consequences of

failing to reach agreement are portrayed as imprisonment until you have

44 B. Mack, The Lost Gospel, 44 and 97, notes that in the paradigm held since 1988, this text is

thought to belong to the second of three historical layers in the formation of Q, the Q2 stratum

concerning sayings about judgment.

45 Mack, 19-20.

46 DV 19.


21/55


Page 21

paid the last penny. Imprisonment for debt was not part of Jewish law: the

idea is presumably a reflection of Hellenistic practice.47

Is the saying meant to carry eschatological significance, or is it merely a

counsel of wisdom for maintaining good social relationships in earthly life?

Exegetes generally find no reason to doubt that the saying originated from

Jesus; Davies and Allison note48 how it is typical of His and of Jewish

eschatology given the role of the judge. Matthews Gospel tradition notably

uses debt to express generally that which God forgives us in the Lords

Prayer (Mt 6:12). At the time Q is thought to have been composed,

eschatological questions would have been urgent; by the time Matthew wrote,

this was less imperative.49 That the saying has an eschatological dimension is

supported by Mack, by Davies and Allison, and strongly so (because

emphasised by Amen) by Luz.50

Betz51 considers the saying primarily as a wisdom tradition about

avoiding conflict on earth, with Old Testament antecedents52

and repeated inthe Didache;

53 the last penny might encompass not only the original debt

but lawyers fees, a court fine, or a bribe to the jailer. He does, however, allow

47 W. Davies and D. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint

Matthew, Volume I (hereafter D&A I), 520; see also U. Luz, Matthew 8-20: A Commentary

(hereafter Luz II), 472 in the context of Mt 18.48 D&A I, 519.

49 D&A I, 519.

50 U. Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary(hereafter Luz I), 281 and 290.

51 H. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 228-230.

52 Prov 25:7-8, Sir 18:20; cf. Prov 6:1-5.

53Didache, 1.5, in Staniforth, Early Christian Writings, 191: here the last penny saying is used of

the punishment of one who needlessly demands material Christian charity, but in the context of

praising those who give alms generously.


22/55


Page 22

a possible eschatological dimension, comparing it with Hellenistic belief in

having to make tenfold restitution for injustice before admission to the

Elysian Fields.54

It is consistent with current scholarship, then, to apply exegesis to the

saying as eschatological. Verses 22, 29 and 30 issue warnings about being

consigned to Gehenna. Does this indicate a context of eternal punishment, or

is it consistent with a temporary imprisonment? In 1st/2nd Century CE

rabbinic writings,55 Sheol is carried over from earlier times as the first

destination of the dead, but becomes transitional either to Eden (where souls

are welcomed by Abraham56) or to Gehenna. A last judgment is proposed:

after it Rabbi Akiba and the Hillel school think sinners spend 12 months 57 in

Gehennaand are then annihilated. The Shammai school holds that there is

eternal bliss in Eden, eternal Gehenna, and also a temporary visit to Gehenna

for souls judged to be of intermediate status. So it is not impossible for

Gehenna to indicate a transient state,58

though only the Shammai positionallows a release into life at the end of it.

Matthew most probably associated paying the last penny with the

Gehennaof 5:22.59 Davies and Allison60 hold that Matthew believed Gehenna

54 Betz, 229, cites Plato on the myth of Er, Republic, Book X, 615b-c (verified in G. Grube, 286).

55

J. Neusner, The Tosefta, Vol. II, 1188-1189: Sanhedrin13.3 and 13.4; Le Goff, 39-41; see also D&AI, 515.

56 Note that by the time Lukes Gospel was written (and probably in the speech of the time of Jesus

Himself, given the prominence of Abraham in the parable), Lazarus could be described as in the

Bosom of Abraham (Lk 16:22) as hispost-mortemreward.

57 Rabbi Johnanan ben Nur held it was only the time from Passover to Pentecost: D&A I, 515.

58 So Ratzinger, 221.

59 D&A I, 521.

60 D&A I, 515.


23/55


Page 23

was eternal, since in other verses he speaks of eternal fire; this is, however,

no proof of the eternity ofGehennaif Matthew followed the Shammai school

and therefore felt it necessary to mention eternity explicitly when relevant.

Augustine (43061), commenting on this passage, ponders whether paying

the last penny truly means paying the fullness of the debt: he explicitly

presumes this happens in the place of eternal punishment, but refuses to

commit too strongly to what Scripture means by eternal punishment. He

grapples inconclusively with whether until implies a termination or not.62

Later in the Gospel, Matthew 18:34 reprises the concept of being

imprisoned to fulfil a debt in the parable of the two debtors, a clear teaching

on the relationships between God and two human persons. The parable

follows Peters question (18:21) about how often he should forgive a brother

who sins against him the implication being that this concerns a fellow-

member of the Church, one who is already part of Gods Kingdom. Themessage of 18:35 is plain: unless you forgive your brothers debts

(wrongdoings), God will consign you for torture63 as deserved by your own

debts.

61 J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1, 381.

62 Augustine, Commentary on the Lords Sermon on the Mount, Bk I Ch 11 Section 30. (D. Kavanagh

47-48.)

63 The Greek word basanisth/j (torturers) at 18:34 is a hapax legomenonfor the New Testament

(D&A II, 802); it is striking that the Evangelist follows it with a statement that God will treat

people in the same way, though the sense of the text does not require us to assert that God

Himself inflicts torture, which would raise doctrinal issues in the light of CCC 1472.


24/55


Page 24

Most exegetes agree this pericope to be a parable of the Lord, though

retold in Matthews style;64 some argue it originates with the Evangelist.65 Luz

asserts that such parables would be heard and read as clearly having

allegorical features.66 De Boer67 attempts to reconstruct the parable as it was

before Matthew edited it, and posits that the primitive form consists simply

of the minor debtor, and then the unforgiving major debtor, being

imprisoned until they pay all their debts. Verse 35, the warning that God will

do the same to the unmerciful, may have been a redactional construction by

Matthew.68 The evangelist may have intended to evoke popular apocalyptic

imagery by speaking of torture;69 the historical context is that a debtor would

be tortured to motivate his family and friends to pay the debt as quickly as

possible.70

Clearly this parable has the root meaning that one should exercise the

mercy one wishes to receive oneself:71 while the Mt 5:25 passage suggests

that the guilty party must take the initiative, the onus here seems to be onthe righteous accuser (who is himself indebted to God) to cancel debts.

Verse 35, even if by Matthew rather than original to Jesus, presents it also

as an eschatological allegory. Does the parable imply a time-limited

64 W. Davies and D. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint

Matthew. Volume II (hereafter D&A II), 794.

65 Luz II, 469.

66 Luz II, 471.

67 M. De Boer, Ten Thousand Talents? Matthews Interpretation and Redaction of the Parable of

the Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35), 230.

68 D&A II, 803.

69 Luz II, 474.

70 D&A II, 802.

71 A biblical theme spanning Sir 28:2, Matthews own Lords Prayerat Mt 6:12, and James 2:13.


25/55


Page 25

punishment for the major debtor? Ten thousand talents is large enough to

symbolise an infinite debt, so eternal punishment may be implied;72 de Boers

reconstruction73 holds that the major debtor originally owed 10,000 denarii,

not talents a sum which could feasibly be discharged in due time. 74 But the

canonical text uses talents, and in Patristic discussion, Chrysostom and

Apollinaris held that in effect until meant eternal punishment.75 Little other

Patristic commentary survives; mediaeval theologians also interpreted the

text as concerning losing ones salvation, and debated whether God could

revoke forgiveness already bestowed.76

Luke 12:58-59 employs the same characters, a judge and an officer.77 It

is noteworthy that the chapter begins (12:5) with a strong charge to fear the

one who has authority both to kill the body, and cast the soul into Gehenna.

Those with most need to fear punishment, it seems, are hypocritical

Pharisees (12:1) and those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (12:10).Ignorant wrongdoing will be punished (12:48), but those who know Gods

commandments and break them will receive more severe punishment and be

destroyed (12:46-47). There is no context of any particular kind of sin for the

saying on making up with your accuser; the preceding verse (12:57) rather

72

D&A II, 803.73 de Boer, 230.

74 For further arguments about whether the original form was 10,000 denarii, but Matthew changed

it to talents, see D&A II, 795; Luz II, 471.

75 M. Simonetti, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Matthew 14-28, 87: Apollinaris,

Fragment 92; John Chrysostom, Homily LXI on Mt 18, para 4; Chrysostom text verified in P.

Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Volume X, 379.

76 Luz II, 476-77.

77 The choice of a different Greek word here seems irrelevant.


26/55


Page 26

emphasises ones responsibility for recognising right behaviour without

recourse to a judge.

Recent major commentaries do not devote much attention to this

pericope in Luke, and the chief scholarly question is whether Luke intends

the saying to be understood primarily as practical wisdom, or as an

eschatological parable. If the latter, then is the adversary with whom one

must make peace God or Satan?78

Fitzmyer79 believes the sayings to be minatory, not parabolic; since Luke

has inserted them here in a travelogue in Stage III of the Gospel tradition, the

original context80 is lost. Marshall notes various possibilities without

committing himself, though he holds the Matthean parallel to be

unambiguously eschatological. Jeremias, however, holds Matthews teaching

to be pragmatic and Luke to offer the teaching in an eschatological context;

he allows that the delay of the Parousia caused the church to give more

weight to such sayings as hortatory norms for Christian living pending thefinal judgment, rather than treating them as a call to immediate once and

for all action.81

Origens (ca. 25482) Homily 3583 treats of this pericope. In paragraphs 10-

1584 we see hints of Origens understanding of judgment, where each sin

78 German references to all these possible interpretations are given by I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of

Luke, 552.

79 J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), 1001-1003; this assertion presupposes that

Luke was not concerned with placing Q-sayings in their correct historical context despite his

statement of intent at Lk 1:1-4.

80 That is, Stage I: the oral preaching of Jesus.

81 J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 43-44; L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 209, also holds Matthew

to be pragmatic with Luke eschatological.

82 Pelikan, Vol. 1, 390.


27/55


Page 27

accrues its own due penalty; the faithful man, however, is enricheddaily. The

Lord can forgive debts, but if we do not gain his forgiveness, we are in the

power of the debt collector.

Even among meagre and fine sins there is a difference I cannotclearly state how long a time we are shut up in prison, until we paythe debt. For if he who owes a little debt does not come out until hepays the last penny, then surely for him who owed such a great debtinfinite ages will be counted off for paying what he owes.85

We find, then, that there is no obstacle to reading all three references to

the last penny as having an eschatological dimension, explicitly so by Mt

18:35 and implicitly by their proximity to references to Gehennain Mt 5 and

Lk 12. Nor does the concept ofGehennaintrinsically exclude the possibility

of punishment of finite duration. The saying is original to Jesus Himself, and

therefore constitutes a privileged form of revelation: critiques of its authority

depend less on questions of what it means for New Testament authors to be

inspired and more on the Christological issue of the divine knowledge

possessed by Jesus.86 Spoken by the lips of the Word Incarnate, preserved by

the community which knew the Risen Jesus, set down as inspired Scripture,

with the authority of a Gospel: insofar as any Scripture can adequately speak

of what lies beyond death, this text must be as authoritative as any in the

Bible.

There is no evidence that the earliest Christian community received this

text as teaching about a finite state ofpost-mortempunishment. There again,

83 J. Lienhard, Origen: Homilies on Luke, Fragments on Luke, 142-152.

84 Lienhard, 147-152.

85 Lienhard, 151-152.

86 For which see the International Theological Commissions 1985 document La coscienza che Ges

aveva di se stesso e della sua missione.


28/55


Page 28

the early Christians were disappointed in their eschatological expectations,

having wrongly understood that the Parousia would come in their lifetime.87

A true exegesis of Scripture must allow for the Spirit to guide disciples into

an ever-deepening and progressive clarification of the revelation88 already

given. Hence, knowing only that the subsequent development of doctrine

acknowledges the possibility of a post-mortemstate of punishment and/or

purification, and trusting in the authenticity of the Gospels, how may we

interpret these verses?

The literal interpretation of the verses, given the historical practices

which Jesus chose to use as an illustration, is that there is a finite

eschatological state of punishment or torture, from which one is released

when ones debt is discharged. The debt is towards ones accuser, which is

most naturally interpreted as symbolising God (or Christ) as eschatological

judge. It might be possible to develop a theology of Satan as accuser (his role

in Job) and draw parallels with theories of the atonement in which Christsredeeming act is payment to Satan rather than God;89 this question is worthy

of further exploration, but would take us beyond our current project of

exploring the dynamics of purgatory.

One can avoid purgatorial torture entirely by entering into a pact of

forgiveness with ones accuser. A person is consigned to purgation because

87 See e.g. I Thess 4:12-16, Jn 21:23.

88 IBC III.B.

89 See e.g. G. Auln, Christus Victor, for a classic treatment of theories of the atonement, especially

47-55 for a treatment of the idea of paying ransom to Satan.


29/55


Page 29

he90 has unpaid debts andhas not successfully appealed for forgiveness. The

Mt 18 parable indicates that the appeal for mercy is granted only to those

who have themselves acted mercifully, a concept echoed strongly in the

Lords Prayer: forgive us our debts as we have forgiven those who are in debt

to us (Mt 6:12). The sayings in Matthew and Luke can be interpreted on two

levels: seek peace with your eschatological accuser; or (given the wider

Gospel message embodied in the Lords Prayer) seek peace with your brother

in order to be at peace with God.

It seems to follow that Purgatory is therefore experienced (i) by those

who did not ask God for forgiveness for all of their debts (the simplest sense

of Mt 5 and Lk 12), and (ii) by those who did ask Gods total forgiveness but

were judged to have been unmerciful to some degree (Mt 18, and the Lords

Prayer). In such cases it is possible for souls to attain heaven even though

they did not fully practise penitence or mercy during their earthly lives: lack

of expiation (earthly penances) and of spiritual maturity (unmercifulness) canboth be remedied beyond the grave.

The Gospel texts do not explicitly indicate that the prisoners debt might

in practice be discharged by his family and friends, but this would have been

the reality in the ancient world, and a pragmatic course of action by any

accuser more interested in recouping debts than in punitive damages. One

assumes that the accused does not possess the means to pay the debts

himself, or else he would have avoided prison using his own resources. Given

that Jesus Himself chose the analogy of a debtors prison, it is not

90 The use of non-inclusive language is acknowledged, used here for stylistic reasons. Those who

object to such things are entreated to exercise mercy, and to note that the author did not choose

to consign a woman to purgatory!


30/55


Page 30

implausible that He meant to indicate the possibility of debts being

discharged vicariously. From this the concept of indulgences may be argued

to have a justification in Scripture.

The Gospels: An Ignorant Servant, Punished Lightly?

In close proximity to Lukes version of the last penny teaching, we find

another eschatological text: the account of two servants being punished. Lk

12:35-48 is a block of teaching about the eschatological return of the Master,

and mostly concerns a servant who knows the Masters will, but is caught out

on the Masters return for not obeying it:

[JB Lk 12:46b-48a]: The master will cut him off91 and send him to thesame fate as the unfaithful. [47] The servant who knows what theMaster wants, but has not even started to carry out those wishes, willreceive very many strokes of the lash. [48] The one who did not know,but deserves to be beaten for what he has done, will receive fewerstrokes.

The Jerusalem Bibles use of cut off is misleading, since the literal meaning

of the text is cut in two;92 it would not be sound to assert that the ignorant

servant, who is not said to be cut off, therefore enters the Kingdom of

Heaven. Nevertheless, this latter servant explicitly receives fewer strokes of

91 The NRSVs preferred reading here is cut him in pieces, but allows cut him off as an

alternative translation. RSV has will punish him with an alternative of cut him in pieces. NJB

and CCB follow JB without noting any textual difficulties.

92 Fitzmyer, 990; Johnson, 205.


31/55


Page 31

the lash.93 This might be reads as a revelation that, at the return of the

Master, some will receive punishment yet not be destroyed.94

If the text does apply to servants who are ultimately saved, it is

problematic when applied to Purgatory, since the return of the Master

suggests a revelation about the Second Coming,95 at which Purgatory will be

abolished. Yet this raises the question of what fate awaits those alive at the

Second Coming who would have been candidates for Purgatory had they died

at an earlier time: damnation, salvation even though they are impure, or

some form of purification other than Purgatory? We will return to this

question in our consideration of I Cor 3.

The Gospels: Neither in this World nor the World to Come?

Mt 12:32 threatens no forgiveness in this world or the world to come.

Does this text imply that some things may be forgiven in the world to come?

The primary teaching point of the text concerns the finality of rejecting theHoly Spirit, not any distinction between opportunities for forgiveness.96

Augustine97 offers a lengthy consideration of the nature of the blasphemy

against the Holy Spirit, but dismisses any distinction of opportunities for

93 This may be behind Gregory the Greats thinking (Dialogues, 4.42, trans. O. J. Zimmerman) in

recounting the story of a deacon for whom there was purification from sin after death because

the deacon had sinned through ignorance, and not through malice.94 Luke might be making a similar distinction in 19:24 and 19:27 where a servant fearful of investing

his talent merely loses his deposit (cf. the parallel in Mt 25:30 where he is expelled into darkness

and the gnashing of teeth) but those who oppose the reign of the King are to be slaughtered.

95 Fitzmyer, 984-987, asserts that the contextual pericope (Lk 12:35-46) has eschatological

significance, though concerning the idle servant cut in two, admits: it is difficult to say how

much allegory is involved in this saying.

96 van der Walle, 201.

97 Augustine, Sermon XXI, para 20.


32/55


Page 32

punishment, reasoning that repentance only obtaineth forgiveness in this

world, that it may have its effect in the world to come. Luz is puzzled by the

phrase and presumes Matthew preserves a saying he has received, which

strengthens the seriousness of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.98

Davies and Allison99 consider the wider pericope to be of dominical origin,

while admitting they are in a minority.

The Markan parallel, 3:28-29, brands this blasphemy as an eternal sin.

This is a distinctly different turn of phrase, and if Mark is prior then Matthew

has expanded the notion of eternal sin by using a different figure of speech,

possibly one employing Semitic parallelism for emphasis. Even if we accept

the above hypothesis that Jesus spoke of paying the last penny as a

deliberate revelation of a finite post-mortem punishment, we would not

expect Matthew to reflect such an idea purposefully (contrary to the

Christian culture of his time) in his writing style. On the other hand, if

Matthew were prior to Mark then it would be significant that Marksredaction avoided any suggestion of forgiveness in the coming world. In

either case, this Matthean text cannot stand alone as an unambiguous

revelation of Purgatory, even though it has been used as evidence of such a

state100 by authorities no less than Gregory the Great!101

98 Luz II, 209.

99 D&A II, 344-345.

100 This text reveals nothing, of course, of the dynamics of Purgatory beyond the possibility of sins

being forgiven there.

101 CCC 1031.


33/55


Page 33

Peter and Paul: Saved, but as by Fire?

Historically, the one text most used as the basis of teaching on Purgatory

has been I Cor 3:13-15.102 Here, Paul asserts that if a man builds on the

foundation of Christ, his work will be tried by fire. If it is proved by the test,

he will be rewarded; if his work is burned up, he will suffer a loss yet be

saved, but as by fire. A perspective sympathetic to the traditional Catholic

interpretation is offered by Collins:

The image of construction workers dominates Pauls exhortation.Those whose works withstand the testing by fire will receive a reward,literally their wages; those whose works are destroyed by fire will be

penalised. Paul does not say that these workers will be destroyedthey will, nonetheless, be saved. Paul does not tell his readers thegrounds for this amazing affirmation. Despite the fact that he hasused the apocalyptic imagery of a destructive fire the apostleremains convinced that those who belong to Gods holy people will besaved.103

Exegetes differ widely about whether the day of testing is the

eschatological Day of Judgment,104 and about whether the loss which is

suffered is understood as witnessing ones work being burnt up, or

(reflecting a secular usage of the word zemiou=sqai) a fine exacted from

builders for shoddy workmanship.105

Should this pericope be interpreted as a revelation about an

102 Binski, 183-184.

103 R. Collins, First Corinthians, 152.

104 Collins, 158, favours an eschatological interpretation, as does C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on

the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 88, and G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 141-142; W.

Orr and J. A. Walther, I Corinthians, 173 also espouse this, but cautiously; H. Conzelmann, 1

Corinthians, 76, prefers to see a metaphor which is not a preview of the eschaton.

105 So Collins, 160; Conzelmann 76, allows either interpretation; Orr and Walther, 168, prefer

sustain a loss; Barrett, 89, finds the translation difficult, but recoils from any element of

punishment. Fee, 143, finds that all other New Testament occurrences of the word indicate loss

rather than punishment, and takes this to be the case here also.


34/55


Page 34

eschatological state of fiery testing? Conzelmann106 is unwilling to admit

interpretations indicating Purgatory, and is uncomfortable with the possible

implication that baptism makes a person irreversibly saved, though pleased

with the idea that poor works of themselves do not affect ones status as a

Christian. He is forced to conclude that the meaning of v 15 is obscure

perhaps an indication of his a priori denominational position. Barretts

position is similar, as is Fees;107 the latter explicitly develops a theology of

undeserved reward for good works being added to undeserved salvation as

part of Gods gift.

Orr and Walther108 attempt to build a thesis which links the test by fire to

the wider context of the passage in which Paul is speaking of his own

apostolic mission; therefore the test by fire applies to the quality of the

Church which Paul has built. They allow an eschatological interpretation, but

restrict it to the testing of church-builders. The verses preceding the passage

certainly constitute a meditation by Paul on the role of various apostles butthe following verses are exhortations to the whole Corinthian church. While

the test certainly will apply to church-builders if it applies to anyone, Orr and

Walther fail to consider its wider applicability to Christians; they find the text

grammatically difficult and apply caution in interpretation.

Collins, as we have seen, is more willing to read the passage at face value.

If we do so, we might see echoes of a saying which could have reached Paul

from the nascent Gospel tradition of the time: to those who have much

(worthy works), more shall be given (wages); to those who have not (because

106 Conzelmann, 77.

107 Barrett, 88-89; Fee, 141-145.

108 Orr and Walther, 172-174.


35/55


Page 35

their work is burned up) even what they have shall be taken away (further

punishment).109 In any case, Pauls conviction that those who suffer through

the test are nevertheless saved is crystal clear.

I Cor 3:13-15 clearly teaches the eschatological testing of work. All the

builders start on the foundation of Christ therefore this teaching applies

only to those who have embraced Christian faith. It is implicit that all

followers of Christ are expected to produce work of a certain standard. 110

Worthy work receives its wages;111 if it is lacking, it is burnt up. But what is

the relationship of the consumption of poor work to the experience suffered

by the worker? In particular, does the final reference to fire, through which a

man is saved in v 15, refer to the same fire spoken of in the preceding

verses? Is it one and the same act which consumes the work and rescues the

person? Many exegetes argue that the phrasing as if through fire is a simple

metaphor for being rescued from a dangerous situation.112 Protestant

exegetes tend to reject the trivial interpretation that the loss is simply theburning of work, while refusing to allow any sense of punishment.

The text alone does not unambiguously teach an actual eschatological

experience of the soul passing through fire. There is a long Catholic

tradition of it being used that way, yet the meaning is sufficiently hard to

109Cf. Mt 13:12, 25:29; Mk 4:25; Lk 8:18, 12:48 (note: the saying is here quoted in the context of the

knowledgeable and ignorant servants), and 19:26 (this passage of Luke featured in the earlier

footnote about the servant who loses his deposit).

110Cf. the parables of servants entrusted with talents to invest until the Masters return: Mt 25:14-

30; Lk 19:11-27.

111 This is not to imply that salvation might be earned; the agreed wage is due to the generosity of

the Divine Employer, according to Christs teaching in Mt 20:1-16.

112 Collins, 160; Fee, 144; Barrett, 189; Conzelmann, 76-77; Orr and Walther, 174, however, find

pain in the witnessing of work being burnt.


36/55


37/55


Page 37

the two fires are the same, that the soul is saved by the same fire which

purifies the persons past works; but this is not essential. For Gregory, the

cleansing fire of the world to come is of interchangeable merit with earthly

sufferings.116

I Pt 1:7 is also a traditional locus117 for the concept of cleansing fire in

purgatory; the passage affirms that when Jesus is revealed, your faith will

have been tested and proved like gold which is corruptible even though it

bears testing by fire. Here the context is ambiguous and may refer to trials

suffered before death: this text cannot establish the nature of purgation on

its own, though its meaning becomes clear in the light of I Cor 3:13-15.118

Tradition: Suffrage for the Dead.

Since Scripture and Tradition flow from the same divine wellspring119 we

must also consider evidence of practices concerning the dead which date

back to apostolic times. There is significant evidence for the practice ofpraying for the dead.120

In the Acts of Paul and Thecla(late 2nd Century) the girl Thecla prays for

the dead, and Tertullian (ca. 220121) knows of this text.122 Elsewhere123 he

116 Gregory, Dialogue4, 41, in Zimmerman, 248.

117

CCC 1031.118 A more thorough study might also consider the relevance of everyone being salted with fire in

Mk 9:49; for a cultural context for that passage, see J. D. M. Derrett, Salted With Fire.

119 DV 9.

120 See, for instance, R. R. Atwell, From Augustine to Gregory the Great: an evaluation of the

emergence of the Doctrine or Purgatory, 174-175.

121 Pelikan, Vol. 1, 393.

122 Tertullian, De baptismo, 17.

123 Tertullian, De corona militis, 3.


38/55


Page 38

acknowledges the practice of making offerings for the dead and that this is

upheld by Tradition, there being little in Scripture, and yet again, he urges

Christian widows to pray for their late husbands to be granted refrigerium

interim.124 According to Tertullians thinking, based on the idea of

Abarahams Bosom, the good dead enter this interim place of refreshment

pending the last judgment (in response to Marcion who taught immediate

heaven at death).125

The authenticity of the memoirs of Perpetua, martyred AD 203, is not in

doubt. They recount a sudden urge that she should pray for her brother, who

died in childhood; she receives a vision of him, disfigured, in a place where

he could not reach water. After days of prayer, she was granted a vision of

him in the same place, his face healed, and water now within his reach.126

Around the year 421 Augustine wrote a letter on The Care to Be Taken

for the Dead 127 in reply to Bishop Paulinus of Nola; both Augustine and

Paulinus attest the practice of the universal Church to pray for the dead,128

and Augustine did approve of remembering his dead mother at Mass.129

124 Tertullian, De monogamia10.4. The patristic references in this paragraph are from Le Goff, 47-

51.125 Le Goff, 46-48; Binski, 24-25 and 182.

126 Le Goff, 48-50; Binski, 184. Account is in Chapter II of Tertullian (attrib.), The Passion of the

Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas.

127 Augustine, On the care to be taken for the dead, 347-384 in R. Deferrari, Saint Augustine:

Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects.

128 Augustine, On the care to be taken for the dead: Paulinus in para 1; cf. Augustine in para 3.

129 Augustine, Confessions, IX, xi, 27 and 35-37; see also references in Atwell, 176, and G. R.

Edwards, Purgatory: Birth or Evolution?, 645.


39/55


Page 39

Gradually grew the practice of arranging Masses for the dead. 130

Chrysostom attests both the practice of offering Mass for the dead and the

doctrine of it being an ordinance of the Spirit efficacious for their relief:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified bytheir father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for thedead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help thosewho have died and to offer our prayers for them.131

It is worthy of note that Gregory the Great treats of Purgatory. 132 He sees

significance in Pauls choice of perishable materials (wood, grass, straw)

which are to be burnt up, inferring that they represent trivial sins capable of

being pardoned in the next life; he extends the Biblical imagery to speak of

foundations of iron, bronze or lead, which would represent mortal sin.

It is not possible to state with certainty that the practice of praying for

the dead was sanctioned by the apostles.133 It may readily be argued that the

desire to do something on behalf of the dead flows from human grief, and

any ancient practice is rooted in this rather than revelation. Nevertheless, the

practice is attested favourably by major writers of Christian antiquity.

130 Binski, 26-27 and 184; Pelikan, Vol. 3, 32-33; cf. Augustine, On the care to be taken for the

dead, para 3.

131 John Chrysostom, Homily XLI(on I Corinthians), para 8, in P. Schaff & T. Chambers, Nicene

and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol XII, 253-254; the text here is the translation offered by CCC

1032, and refers to Job 1:5.

132 Gregory, Dialogue4, 41 in Zimmerman, 247ff..

133 Le Goffs masterly and exhaustive survey of sources concerning Purgatory offers nothing prior

to The Passion of Perpetua in its treatment of ancient texts: Le Goff 17-51, especially 48-51.

Ratzinger, 218-228, finds hints of Purgatory in Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory

Nazianzen, but nothing earlier.


40/55


Page 40

Chapter 5: Purgatory: A Description and a Critique

In the previous chapters we have considered what is doctrinally defined

about Purgatory, the logical consequences of these definitions, and what can

be firmly established as revealed in Scripture and Tradition. In this chapter

we shall first create a synthesis which describes Purgatory, and then make a

critique in the light of contemporary theology.

Detention and Refinement: A New Paradigm

In the light of what we have established as revealed or doctrinally

required, we assert:

a) There is a post-mortem state in which souls expiate their debts.(From the last penny texts, and clearly in Paul VIs teaching.)

b) Truly penitent souls undergo purgatorial penalties in lieu of thepenances they were unable to complete while alive. (Florence)

c) Living persons may contribute suffrage towards this expiation byapplying Mass, prayers or alms. (Implicit by the Gospel metaphor of

a debtors prison; taught by Council of Florence.)

d) In order to avoid this state, one must ask the Lords mercy beforeone comes to judgment. (Mt 5:25-26 and Lk 12:58-59)

e) But one will only receive mercy to the extent one has been mercifulto others. (Mt 18; the Lords Prayer134). If the Mt 5:25-26 and Lk 12:58-

59 texts indicate the need to seek Gods mercy in order to avoid

Purgatory, then the general teaching of the New Testament on who

134 Other New Testament texts support this teaching on the mercifulness of God in general: Mt 5:7

(among the beatitudes); James 2:13 speaks of mercy in the context of judgment.


41/55


Page 41

will be granted mercy surely applies in this case unless cogent reasons

to the contrary exist: it follows that souls detained in Purgatory have

been unmerciful or else unwilling to ask for total forgiveness.

f) The Church grants a plenary indulgence to all its members135 whodie properly disposed and in the habit of reciting some prayers.

(Paul VI)

g) Those baptised who have no need of purification behold theBeatific Vision immediately upon death. (Benedict XII)

h) If faults have been committed through a baptised persons free will,that soul must be purified either by earthly penance or else post-

mortem before it can enjoy the beatific vision. (Benedict XII)

i) There is a fire through which one is saved, an experience availableat the Final Judgment and, traditionally, also after the Particular

Judgment. (I Cor 3; I Pt; Gregory the Great)

j)

This salvific fire maybe coterminous with the experience of seeing

ones poor works burnt up. (I Cor 3; I Pt; Gregory the Great)

k) There may also be an experience, at the return of the Master,whereby those who sinned in ignorance receive few strokes of the

lash. (Lk 12:47)

In Chapter 3 we found that it is a logical consequence of doctrine that

Purgatory, which justly provides both purification (detachment of the will;

maturation) and punishment (expiation; with remission for suffrage), must

135 Given that all baptised non-Catholic Christians are members of the One, Holy, Catholic and

Apostolic Church, albeit in imperfect communion (CCC 836-838), are they included in the scope

of this plenary indulgence?


42/55


Page 42

be at least two dimensional; souls which have already expiated all sin may

nevertheless require a non-penal experience of purification. In fact, we see

that in the list above, the expiatory and purificatory aspects of Purgatory can

be listed quite separately; the overlap comes where Florence defines that the

penalties suffered in lieu of earthly penance are purificatory.

Given the separation which can be made, I propose to coin two new

terms: the state of expiation I shall term Detention; the non-penal

purification is then not a state but a process of transition, which I shall

henceforth call Refinement. This process may be undergone by those

baptised on their deathbed, beneficiaries of plenary indulgences, and (out of

necessity rather than merit) those remaining on Earth or in Detention when

Christ does come again. Then items (a)-(f) in the list above concern Detention,

while (g), (i), (j) and (k) concern Refinement. Only item (h) concerns the

purification which may take place through Detention and/or Refinement. The

Scriptural image of fire applies strictly to Refinement; its appropriateness forDetention is traditional but undefined.

Temporal Punishment

Is temporal punishment that which needs to be expiated in Detention, or

a failure of will to be corrected by Refinement? It is through the use of this

term that the most ambiguity enters the tradition. While Paul VI speaks

almost exclusively of the vestiges of sin which need to be expiated, with just

a hint of its relevance to personal reintegration,136 the Catechism137 seems to

136 ID 3.

137 CCC 1472.


43/55


Page 43

identify temporal punishment explicitly with the need for personal

detachment from sin. Where the tradition insists on using the latter sense, it

blurs the distinction between penal and non-penal purification, which logic

dictates must both exist. A possible loophole is the way in which the

Catechismstates that freedom from temporal punishment is entailed when a

soul is purified; it remains possible to understand the temporal punishment

as being the expiation which is necessarily rendered, if not already paid by

other means, when the corresponding sin is purified.

The word-limit of this dissertation precludes a detailed consideration of

the subjective experience of undergoing Detention or Refinement, or a

comparison between my distinction and the way in which mystics or

theologians have treated of Purgatory. For Catherine of Genoa, Purgatory is a

place where souls experience great joy, the more so as the presence of Gods

love consumes the rust of their sin.138 For Karl Rahner, Purgatory is the very

awareness of the effects of ones sins on the cosmos;139

for CardinalRatzinger, it may be a Refinement at the Final Judgment.140 I would suggest

that exposure to those merits of Christ and the saints appropriated by

earning a plenary indulgence on ones own behalf, or becoming a passive

victim of love when a living soul applies suffrage on ones behalf, may

intensify the process of purification with a commensurate lessening of

Detention; but speculative development in this direction would take us

beyond our project of clarifying what may, what must and what cannot be

said of Purgatory.

138 Catherine of Genoa, Purgation and Purgatory, 71-72.

139 N. T. Wright, For All the Saints?, 10.

140 Wright, 10-11; Ratzinger, 228-233.


44/55


Page 44

CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE NEW PARADIGM

Many questions and observations would follow if this new paradigm were

to be adopted. Here I sketch out a number of them, any of which could be a

springboard for further research.

(1) Consent and Purification

Keith Ward141 considers a two-stage life after death. In stage one, souls

see their earthly acts and attitudes judged and make progress in

understanding and purification; they can still exercise free will and may yet

be subject to the second death. Only in stage two do souls enter a network

of social relationships and endless contemplation of God.

Leslie Stevenson142 considers and critiques this model: the presence of

free-will in the first stage makes this state distinct from the traditional

Catholic Purgatory. Could God morally purify people without their free

consent? Does there need to be a Last Judgment why should God notallow another chance for those who fail at this stage? If there is judgment,

why one extra chance, rather than the Protestant position that God judges at

the end of this earthly life, however unfair that seems?

Since Detention and Refinement only apply to those who are justified by

explicit or implicit commitment to God, I suggest that the moral problem

Stevenson identifies is circumscribed: consent is granted by virtue of ones

commitment to relationship with God. Gods judgment does indeed apply to

ones history at the end of ones earthly life. Why should there be Detention

141 K. Ward, Religion and Human Nature, ch. 11-14.

142 L. Stevenson, A Two-Stage Life After Death?


45/55


Page 45

as well as Refinement? Gods justice143 requires that unmerciful souls in

particular do not automatically benefit from merciful dispensation from

post-mortempunishment.

(2) Justice and Theodicy

This leads us to issues of theodicy: is it just for God to permit some souls

to undergo Detention, whereas others, through no merit of their own, pass

straight to Refinement as beneficiaries of plenary suffrage? The issue reflects

the wider question of justice in both Catholic Social Teaching and secular

ethics. Attempts to construct a secular ethic from a tabula rasahave resulted

in two prominent theories: Rawls144 concludes that true justice requires a

strictly equal distribution of goods in the present, Nozick145 that true justice

requires rights to retain the legacy of past personal activity. The Catholic

solution146 is that the State must enforce individual rights, but morally

responsible individuals are called to exercise charity, voluntarily derogatingfrom their personal rights for the sake of the common good. Similar

economics apply on Earth and eschatologically: God enforces the right to

bear the legacy of ones actions (the good workers wages, the sinners

expiation). Merciful dispensation from ones expiation is strictly undeserved

but there is a kind of fairness in that it is granted to those who have

themselves been merciful; benefiting from a plenary indulgence is no more

unfair that benefiting from an earthly charity for ones temporal or spiritual

143 Gods justice is not an exercise in gratuitous vengeance, as CCC 1472 makes clear.

144 A. MacIntyre, After Virtue, 246-247.

145 MacIntyre, 247-248.

146 CCC 2401-2406.


46/55


Page 46

needs. The pious practice of praying for the Holy Souls most in need also

offers aid where it is most urgently required.

(3) A Lacuna: Expiation without Purification?

Could it be the case that a soul dies owing God expiation, yet is so

converted as to be in need of no purification an uncatered-for

contingency? This problem is averted today at least for members of the

Church by the fact that a person at such a degree of conversion would

surely qualify for the plenary indulgence offered at the moment of death. But

what of Catholics of bygone centuries, or people of good-will who have no

prayer life? We can plausibly draw an analogy: just as we hope that many will

be saved by choosing the good,147 so pure souls are implicitly asking Gods

mercy. Gods revealed preference is clearly to set aside any debt requiring

expiation; only the unmerciful do not qualify.

(4) The Case of Deathbed Baptism

Are there doctrinal objections to the idea that a person baptised on their

deathbed might undergo Refinement? Even if such a person enters the

Beatific Vision immediately,148 we can understand Refinement as the

experience of transition: it is consistent with theological speculation that it is

the very entry into the full light of the Beatific Vision149 which constitutes the

fire of Refinement. Beholding the living God, knowing that He has already

147 CCC 846-848.

148 We could make an analogy with Benedict XIIs Benedictus Deus(ND 2305 = DS 1000) where the

pure souls enter heaven immediately but here the word translates the Latin moxwhich connotes

soon rather than without mediation.

149 So Seibel; also G. Greshake, cited by Schreiter, 178.


47/55


Page 47

forgiven ones sins and is inviting one to eternal communion with Him, must

be a truly radical experience.

(5) Private Revelation: Divine Mercy

One key insight which the Last Penny texts add to the traditional

treatment of Purgatory is the importance of having been merciful oneself in

order to be mercifully dispensed from Purgatory. The mystic St Faustina

Kowalska claimed visions of Jesus and Mary in the 1930s,150 of which a key

strand was devotion to Jesus as the Divine Mercy, and a promise that any

person who attended Mass on the second Sunday of Easter would, in effect,

gain a plenary indulgence.151 The Church has recently affirmed this by

granting that day the title, Divine Mercy Sunday,152 and formally granting

such an indulgence.153 The private revelation attests that Gods desire is that

no-one should suffer Purgatory; but reflecting the way in which certain

exercises are our ordinary means to appropriate salvation (Baptism,Penance), so other practices (indulgences, mercy) are the ordinary means to

secure avoidance of expiation.154 Situated at the close of the Easter Octave,

the Divine Mercy devotion is not a Lenten penitential exercise oriented to

personal conversion (where one turns from sin by ones own graced efforts),

150 M. F. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, passim.

151 Kowalska, paragraphs 300, 699, 1109.

152 Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Decree Establishing the

Sunday after Easter 'Divine Mercy Sunday'.

153 Apostolic Penitentiary, Indulgences attached to devotions in honour of Divine Mercy.

154 This analogy is not meant to imply that avoiding expiation has the same salvific importance as

avoiding perdition, but highlights how God expects us to make use of ordinary means to secure

the best outcome.


48/55


Page 48

but the Paschal grace of a second Baptism155 ordered to avoiding Purgatory

by virtue of the merciful generosity of God. The sacramental confession

integral to the Divine Mercy devotion serves as a key which unlocks the grace

freely offered by Gods initiative.

(6) Eastern Orthodoxy

Historically, Eastern Orthodoxy rejected the concept of Purgatory because

it seemed too closely tied to Origens heresy of universal salvation.

Orthodoxy holds that saints go directly to heaven; all other souls exist in an

undefined underworld until they undergo a purification at the Last

Judgment.156 According to Ombres,157 the Orthodox pray for allthe departed,

expecting that souls in heaven, hell and the intermediate state may all receive

some increase of blessing or decrease of pain. This position accepts a

Refinement, but not that it can take place at the Particular Judgment, and so

has no role for an expiatory purgatory. It is unclear how prayer for the deadcan benefit souls in this scenario, given the logical constraints on the

relationship between purification and punishment explored above.

155 Thanks to Behruz Rafat for providing this insight and terminology.

156 Ratzinger, 219; Pelikan, Vol. 2, 279-280; M. Cunningham, Faith in the Byzantine World, 150-154.

157 Ombres, 10-11.


49/55


Page 49

Chapter 6: Conclusion

Is the purpose of Purgatory expiation or maturation? We have shown that

two aspects of Purgatory may be distinguished: Detention, which is an

expiatory state which effects maturation; and Refinement, which is purely for

maturation. Indulgences and other forms of suffrage lessen ones Detention;

the Gospel texts about paying the last penny, although not a traditional locus

for teaching on Purgatory, seem to teach that such an expiatory state ex

Documents

Purgatory P.leyshon